Surf Cup's Fate

notintheface said:
On this, we can agree. You might also change "week" into "August", but hey.
Click to expand...
I wish I could, but you remember how I wanted Surf to hold the tournament as a "middle finger to government overreach". Well now that middle finger looks more like a poke in their own eye.
 
happy9 said:
But what about the fate of Surf Cup? I thought....well, I thought that's what we were talking about. Now we are talking about the inadequacies of our local governments and the ability to cherry pick information to satisfy personal needs.

I just want to know if people still think they are playing Surf Cup. And if they are, how do they know that. It's apparent to many that this will not be a "best of the best" event. Maybe so in the Summer, but not in the Winter of 2020 and 2021.

I guess the consensus is that soccer will be played, by enough teams and not streamed but recorded. D1 coaches will not be in attendance. The chances of a D2/D3 coach attending are probably not very high. Will CA D2/D3 schools go against the directives, mandates, orders, whatever they are calling them?

There is an exact 50 camp in Mesa, AZ on 20 DEC, with some coaches scheduled to attend.
Click to expand...
Just go with. I gave up trying to decipher half of the threads here.
 
Glitterhater said:
Just go with. I gave up trying to decipher half of the threads here.
Click to expand...
I know, but there isn't a tangible end state resulting from rehashing opinions based on which side you chose back in March. Oh well.

I figured enough people on here know enough (and know someone, if even twice removed) to nail this down. I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter for most. I would say that many on here are not going based on their club's decision. I live here and our club has backed out, citing lack of schedules, quality fields, and quality of competition. I would think many clubs used similar criteria (along with travel restrictions/mandates, etc)
 
MacDre said:
Come on Grace, the cannons of legislative construction is basic 1L stuff. To hell with the plain meaning of the order written under duress during a pandemic, what is the legislative intent?
Click to expand...

And so then the 2L con law questions are first whether the State has the authority to prohibit its residents from engaging in specific and otherwise lawful activity while in another state, and if so, what is the standard of review? Can you think of any current examples where a regulation like this exists?

Please don't take from my questions that I'm pro or anti covid restrictions or pro or anti surf cup as that horse has been beaten to a pulp; I'm interested in your take, EOTL's and others who are willing to stick to the question of the legitimacy of such blanket "out of state tournament ban" and whether you are concerned about the precedent it would set across the country concerning other morality/public health issues like prohibiting traveling to other States to engage in gambling, recreational drug use, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.? (And please, I'm not saying kiddie soccer is the same as assisted suicide and the other issues I just mentioned, it's just my initial "slippery slope argument" thought in the moment.)

This specific ban is just above prohibiting dining indoors while in a different State. Has that been banned yet too? I think we agree it is not smart to eat indoors whether it is legal in a jurisdiction or not, but does the State have the police power to regulate that activity outside its borders to this extent?

My thought, because of my concern over precedent as well as a broader approach to actually reduce further introduction of the virus into CA is that a more appropriate regulation would be a mandatory quarantine upon arrival to the State, essential travel or not. Thoughts?
 
Messi>CR7 said:
The only thing more arbitrary than CDPH's youth sports guidance is Dominic's enforcement of no-politics/Covid talk policy.

@Dominic, sorry for the cheap shot :)
Click to expand...
That comment may get you the ban hammer. Nice to know you ;)

Just be subtle when you sneak back. Something like Messi...>...CR.7. That will probably fool him.
 
Kicker4Life said:
In “excess” of what? How does 2020 stack up agains YTD 2019?

I don’t have a “kiddie” both mine are Olders but at least I have 2 that play. Still waiting on that data to support youth outdoor sports are any more of a “spreader event” than going to the grocery store.....really burning you up isn’t it.

I’m not the one rationalizing......
Click to expand...

It’s all right there at the CDC website if you cared to look. It identifies the number of excess deaths, it explains how it comes to its numbers, and explains what the upper and lower boundaries mean. If you expect me to repeat what the CDC says here so you can then claim it’s false because I said it, no.

As I said earlier, everyone claims the thing that is important to them doesn’t cause Covid. I don’t really care about your denialism - other than it gives me something to mock - because science and common sense are winning and saving lives in CA. And if you don’t like it, the Dakotas are waiting.
 
EOTL said:
It’s all right there at the CDC website if you cared to look. It identifies the number of excess deaths, it explains how it comes to its numbers, and explains what the upper and lower boundaries mean. If you expect me to repeat what the CDC says here so you can then claim it’s false because I said it, no.

As I said earlier, everyone claims the thing that is important to them doesn’t cause Covid. I don’t really care about your denialism - other than it gives me something to mock - because science and common sense are winning and saving lives in CA. And if you don’t like it, the Dakotas are waiting.
Click to expand...
A positive side effect of the lockdowns has been the decreasing rate of STD infections being reported per PornHub.
 
DFTibor said:
And so then the 2L con law questions are first whether the State has the authority to prohibit its residents from engaging in specific and otherwise lawful activity while in another state, and if so, what is the standard of review? Can you think of any current examples where a regulation like this exists?

Please don't take from my questions that I'm pro or anti covid restrictions or pro or anti surf cup as that horse has been beaten to a pulp; I'm interested in your take, EOTL's and others who are willing to stick to the question of the legitimacy of such blanket "out of state tournament ban" and whether you are concerned about the precedent it would set across the country concerning other morality/public health issues like prohibiting traveling to other States to engage in gambling, recreational drug use, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.? (And please, I'm not saying kiddie soccer is the same as assisted suicide and the other issues I just mentioned, it's just my initial "slippery slope argument" thought in the moment.)

This specific ban is just above prohibiting dining indoors while in a different State. Has that been banned yet too? I think we agree it is not smart to eat indoors whether it is legal in a jurisdiction or not, but does the State have the police power to regulate that activity outside its borders to this extent?


My thought, because of my concern over precedent as well as a broader approach to actually reduce further introduction of the virus into CA is that a more appropriate regulation would be a mandatory quarantine upon arrival to the State, essential travel or not. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’m not concerned about precedent here because I believe the facts of a global pandemic are distinguishable from gambling, prostitution, pot shops, abortions etc. So, the only time precedent will be an issue is during a global pandemic every 100 or so years. No biggie.

I also don’t agree with framing the issue as a “blanket out of state tournament ban.” No one cares about kiddie soccer. We are in the midst of a global pandemic with over 300,000 dead already. So, setting policy to protect citizens of the state during an emergency global pandemic is well within police powers.

You’ve suggested a reasonable policy that will never be adopted. The San Ysidro port of entry is too important and the quarantine suggested would close the port. Setting policy is kinda like setting goals-they have to be realistic and attainable. Shutting down San Ysidro isn’t realistic or attainable.
 
EOTL said:
It’s all right there at the CDC website if you cared to look. It identifies the number of excess deaths, it explains how it comes to its numbers, and explains what the upper and lower boundaries mean. If you expect me to repeat what the CDC says here so you can then claim it’s false because I said it, no.

As I said earlier, everyone claims the thing that is important to them doesn’t cause Covid. I don’t really care about your denialism - other than it gives me something to mock - because science and common sense are winning and saving lives in CA. And if you don’t like it, the Dakotas are waiting.
Click to expand...
Indeed it does...I wanted to make sure you read it cause it doesn’t play into your argument like to want to claim it does.

Yet you STILL can’t show me the “science” behind outdoor sports.....#winning

Silly Troll....your bridge is lonely.
 
notintheface said:
On this, we can agree. You might also change "week" into "August", but hey.

We're 12 days out from Surf Youngers and no schedule posted. There are definitely tournaments that hold off until the last minute, but Surf are running out of time for coach conflicts, parent scheduling ("do we make the drive early Sunday or late Saturday night"), etc. I'd be getting nervous for my $1400 right about now.
Click to expand...
12 days is nothing. Typically schedules are released 7 to 10 days.
 
Kicker4Life said:
Indeed it does...I wanted to make sure you read it cause it doesn’t play into your argument like to want to claim it does.

Yet you STILL can’t show me the “science” behind outdoor sports.....#winning

Silly Troll....your bridge is lonely.
Click to expand...

I can’t help you with lack of comprehension. That requires years of work, and I just don’t have the time or the inclination. The CDC explains the issue very clearly at its website. Again, you just don’t lime the answer so your going with “alternative facts”. Qanon is very proud if you.

SoCal Blues vs. AYSO Yuma seems like a compelling match-up. Enjoy.
 
Grace T. said:
The issue, as has been discussed before, is that if the wording is definitive enough it will nullifying any insurance the club is carrying. Also now it depends on how the governing entities will respond to the guidance....they might be pressured to suspend orgs and clubs that violate the prohibition.

The Volleyball lobbyists were asleep at the wheel. How is dodgeball any different in contact?
Click to expand...
so ok. just genuinely curious. and figured you might know.

Why did the gov people's use the phrase "must not" instead of "may not" or specifically say that out of state tournaments "are prohibited".

At first glance, seems to imply that the gov's people consciously did not use the phrase "may not" or "are prohibited".
 
socalkdg said:
Guess my kid is running track at school. They put girls Lacrosse and boys lacrosse in different categories? Do they have different rules? I thought Lacrosse was more physical than soccer? Indoor basketball is never happening. How football and soccer can be put in the same category is absurd. Blocking and tackling. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
and rugby.
 
EOTL said:
I can’t help you with lack of comprehension. That requires years of work, and I just don’t have the time or the inclination. The CDC explains the issue very clearly at its website. Again, you just don’t lime the answer so your going with “alternative facts”. Qanon is very proud if you.

SoCal Blues vs. AYSO Yuma seems like a compelling match-up. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha......So I’ll take that as, “I’m Sorry, I can’t find anything supporting my argument that soccer/outdoor sports are killing everyone.”

#WINNING
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top